GAS LIFT

Case study allows for rich and thick description (Holliday, 2002). In order to arrive at thick description ‘the researcher will need to consider the many facets which make up its full social complexity. Data must there be collected to reveal all of these aspects. Indeed this is the purpose of data collection’ (Holliday, 2002: 79). Case study methodology allows for various data collection methods, including observation and interviews in order to capture the complexity and the present study employs these two research methods. In this section I will describe in detail each method; the justification for choosing the respective method, specific advantages and inherent limitations associated with them. In addition, I will explain how and for what purpose each method has been chosen and the process of data collection pertaining to each method and the strategy for and the process of data analysis.

Participant Observation

One of the important methods of data collection in case study research is observation (Cohen et al., 2007; Stake, 1995). Robson (2002:374) says ‘what people do might differ from what they say they do, and observation provides a reality check; observation also enables a researcher to look afresh at everyday behavior that otherwise might be taken for granted, expected or go unnoticed’ and provides clear insights into the lived realities of the participants.

The socio-cultural theoretical perspectives emphasize on shared understandings and co- construction of meaning making (Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, 2003). Observation allows

for the same by allowing the researcher to capture and record events as they happen in a natural setting. Moyles (2002) argues that observational data are sensitive to contexts and demonstrate strong ecological validity unlike the positivist methods. It allows for researcher to build a complete picture and hence better understanding of a given situation (Cohen et al. 2007) to make qualitative judgments based on rich description and shared understanding.

For my research I have carried out participant observations for the whole spring and summer term for three full days a week in 2011 (approximately 72 days including habituation phase in England and for 5 full days each week for four weeks in the month of July and August, 2011 (a total of 20 days) in India. Habituating myself to the study site and to get acceptance from the participants was necessitated due to my position as an outsider from a different country and culture, in England, whereas in the Indian setting I was readily accepted as an insider having worked there for a few years before (as a teacher from 2000-2002) and also for the reason that I come from the same place. In both the cases, participant observations were carried in order to facilitate the direct experiencing of participants’ lived realities.

While observing, I have chosen semi-structured observations, while the kind of observations available to researchers might range from unstructured to structured and responsive to pre-ordinate. A highly structured observation is one where the researcher knows in advance what he is looking for and will have its observation categories worked out in advance. A semi-structured observation will have an agenda and look for illumination of these issues in a far less systematic way. And unstructured observation will have to go into a situation and observe before deciding on its significance to the study in question (Cohen, et. al., 2007). The present study opted for semi-structured in its observations as I was actively looking for the illumination of certain issues like the participants’ perceptions, their practice and the cultural contexts under which they enact their roles with regard to peer relationships.

Traditionally, however, observation has been characterized as non-interventionist where researchers do not seek to manipulate the situation or subjects, they do not pose

questions for the subjects, nor do they deliberately create ‘new provocations’ (Adler and Adler, 1994: 378 cited in Cohen, 2007). Still the interviewer is an integral part of the investigation (Jacob, 1988). According to Le Compte and Pressle (1993), there are four main forms of observation in educational research, based on the degree of researcher’s participation in the activity. They range from the complete Participant observer, the Participant as an Observer, the Observer as Participant and to the Complete Observer Participant. My role was that of Observer as Participant in which my position, as observer and participant, was clearly communicated to the participants of the study where I have an opportunity to participate in the daily routine at a superficial level still providing me an opportunity to observe the daily routine fluidly (Adler and Adler, 1998).

However despite specific advantages and inherent limitations associated with each type of observation method, as Foster (1996) suggests the choice should be made depending upon the purpose of the study informed by the appropriate research methodology. Hence in tune with purpose of the research and the ethos of Socio Cultural theory, I have chosen my position as observer as participant. Participant observations provided me reality check and enabled me to triangulate the data by corroborating with the data gathered from interviews with observational data.

While the advantages of observations are well recognized (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995; Creswell, 2007; Bryman, 2008) there are certain challenges and limitations inherent with this method as an effective research tool (Sadler, 2002; Byrman, 2008) where the partial nature of observations and the potential bias in recording might result in lack of rigor. I have chosen interview method to mitigate and address the limitations associated with observation method and to provide methodological triangulation where I got an opportunity to corroborate and crosscheck what they have said in interviews to what they did through my observations.

Semi-structured interviews

After spending sustained amount of time observing practitioners’ daily routines and their ways and means in facilitating peer relationships, I have conducted interviews with them to delve deeper into their perceptions and to corroborate with my observations towards the end of my time at both the settings. Interview is referred to as a ‘uniquely sensitive and powerful method for capturing the experiences and lived meanings of the subjects in everyday world’ (Kvale, 2007: 11) who remarks an interview, as an inter change of views between two or more people on a topic of mutual interest, sees the centrality of human interaction for knowledge production, and emphasizes the social situated ness of research data. Cohen et al (2007) argue that interviews enable participants – be they interviewers or interviewees to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live and to express how they regard situations from their point of view, which helps in co-construction of knowledge. Stake (1995:64) suggests that “interview is the main road to multiple realities”, allowing each person to share their unique experiences.

To ensure that participants share their experiences freely; it is suggested that the interviewer’s manner should be friendly, courteous, conversational and unbiased which I tried to be while conducting interviews. The idea should be to put the respondents at ease, so that he will talk freely and fully. Kitwood (1997, cited in Cohen, 2007) enumerates three conceptions of an interview. The first conception is that of a potential means of pure information transfer. He explains that ‘if the interviewer does his job well (establishes rapport, asks questions in an acceptable manner, etc.) and if the respondent is sincere and well motivated accurate data may be obtained.

A second conception of the interview is that of inevitable transactional bias which needs to be recognized and controlled. To this end, Kitwood (1997) explains that each participant in an interview will define the situation in a particular way, which can be handled by building controls into the research design. I have aspired to in terms of conducting participant observations along with semi-structured interviews.

The third conception of interview sees it as an encounter necessarily sharing many of the features of life. Kitwood (1997, cited in Cohen 2007) suggests that what is required as the interview is a social encounter, not simply a site for information exchange. I have kept this in mind and tried my best to eliminate transactional bias by allowing myself to be friendly and at ease with the participants from both the settings and by ensuring that they have understood the questions and that we are speaking in the same language as I seek to understand the meaning from the participants’ perspectives. Tuckman (1972) says that by providing access to what is ‘inside a person’s head, makes it possible to measure what a person knows (Knowledge or information), what a person likes or dislikes (values and preferences), and what a person thinks’ (attitudes and beliefs) which is helpful to answer the sort of questions that I have posed for the research study in terms of understanding educators’ perceptions and their practice with regard to fostering peer relationships.

Researcher might use different types of interviews depending on the nature of the investigation and kind of outcomes anticipated and thus to the general theoretical framework within which the researcher is working and also the empirical setting. But in choosing whatever the type of interview the researcher must be aware of possible pitfalls, disadvantages or problems associated with the type of interview they choose. In a most structured form, an interview can take the form of the questionnaire with the interviewer following a specific set of questions with a standard format in an attempt to make the realization of interview as consistent as possible across the sample. This also ensures maximum amount of control, as the researcher doesn’t deviate from the stated questions (Wellington, 2000, Cohen et al., 2007).

At the other extreme, the interview might be relatively unstructured. The unstructured interview might be described as more closely resembling a conversation, with an interviewer working from a relatively loose set of guidelines. Here the questions are open and the format flexible. And the main concern of the interviewer might be to explore the world from the perspective of the interviewee and construct the understanding from the viewpoint of the interviewee and how make sense of the experiences (Brown and Dowling, 1998).

I have used semi-structured interviews, which are situated in between these two approaches. It relied on some form of interview schedule and a set of questions (see Appendix E) relating to the main research question, Perceptions, Practice and Contexts but was more flexible with regard to wording of questions and the order (Wellington, 2000) and was open to modify and change the structure as the situation demanded. In both the contexts of India and England interviews were conducted within the settings, withdrawing to a quiet place to avoid distractions and the noise on the recording. I was mindful of the participants’ time and their hectic schedule and so kept my interviews short and focused with an average interview lasting 30 minutes (one interview per educator totaling 4 interviews at each setting). With their permission I have used small voice recorder by placing it in an unobtrusive place within the voice range. Once the interview was completed, I have transferred the data to my laptop and listening to it several times during transcription and analysis time.

While interview is definitely an effective method it also suffers from certain limitations. It only “informs us of what the person interviewed is prepared to say about the topic in the social context time and place of that interview” (Walford, 2001:95). For this reason interview content is further corroborated with the participant observations, which ensured methodological triangulation. Cohen et al., (2007) further cautioned for the bias and subjectivity on the part of the researcher. It is important that the researcher is aware of these risks and pitfalls and should avoid leading, loaded and restrictive questions (Wellington, 2000:82), which I have avoided during the interview. In all the interviews attention was placed on understanding the attitudes, cognitions, comments and thought processes of participants as they discuss the issue at hand (Kruger and Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1998). Interview questions were framed in a phenomenological context to allow the teachers to share their way of thinking and to describe their behaviors as lived experiences.